About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Political fantasies and the Republican war on Americans

by Massimo Pigliucci

Sometimes I think I’m not paid enough to do this job. Well, actually I’m not paid at all, but that’s beside the point. I ought to be paid more than a large number of pundits on CNN and editorialists at the New York Times. Why? Because I didn’t believe for a minute their bullshit, a mere two years ago or so, about a post-racial America and the permanent relegation of the Republican party to minority and even fringe status within the American political landscape — which many of them were confidently predicting.

As soon as Obama was elected, the media trampled all over each other to declare the end of racism in America. All it took was one (admittedly pivotal, historical) event — the election of a quasi-black man to the Presidency — and voilà, everything from slavery to the Civil War to Jim Crow laws was going to be relegated to ancient history. It will all be an embarrassing memory, but only a memory nonetheless, nothing to do with the new post-racial America.

Except of course that it was bullshit, and of the self-evident type to boot. Sure enough, it took only weeks for the same media to start reporting on large percentages of Republicans believing that Obama is a Muslim (as if that were somehow an indictment of some kind), that he is not American (despite the public availability of documents clearly showing that he is), that he is a socialist (despite his Presidency clearly settling on a pretty moderate course from the get go), and so on. Why? Because a large number of Republicans simply can’t stand the very idea that a (quasi) black is their President. But they can’t say it in so many words (we have made some social progress since the ‘50s), so they express their outrage by embracing political fantasies and conspiracy theories.

And what about that “the Republicans are relegated to permanent minority” idiocy? Well, just look at the midterm elections a mere two years later. They got back control of the House by a large margin, they missed on regaining the Senate only because they overreached by getting in bed too tightly with the silliness of the Tea Party, and they now represent a clear and present danger to a second Obama term. Oh, and they have immediately re-started with much fanfare their war against unions, public education, the poor and the middle class, all the while further fattening their Wall Street masters (who just two years previous caused a global economic catastrophe out of sheer greed, and got compensated with billions of our dollars for doing so). The real question is: how did this happen?

There are, of course, a variety of reasons, but some of them can be understood by examining the parallel between US politics and — of all comparisons — the Italian one, which I still follow from a distance, despite having left the Bel Paese more than twenty years ago.

You see, in the 1990s Italy switched from a proportional (classic European style) electoral system to a “winner take all” one modeled on the American system — Italians have always had a fetish for all things American, from Dallas (the tv show) to Madonna (the singer, not the alleged mother of Jesus), so why not imitate the voting system of the self-professed best democracy in the world?

The result was catastrophic: overnight it turned the multi-party system that had navigated (with ups and downs, for sure) the Italian ship since the end of World War II (and made it one of the world’s seven most industrialized nations) into a de facto two-party (they call them “poles”) system where those in power have an increasingly easier time remaining there. Add to this that the Italian Right (partly through the evil genius of Silvio Berlusconi) controls the majority of newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations; that it has the Catholic church on its side (all in favor of family values except when it comes to pedophiliac priests); that a huge amount of money is continuously funneled to the Right by the ultra-rich (and the Mafia); that the sheer stupidity and gullibility of about half of the Italian citizenry has reached astounding heights not seen since the Mussolini era; and that the opposition is simply inept, and you’ve got a pretty much complete explanation.

Sound familiar? Maintaining the same order so that the parallelism is particularly obvious, Republicans keep coming back and controling the agenda even when they are not in power because: a) There is a two-party system which guarantees that any meaningful alternative doesn’t have a chance from the get go; b) Republicans have a powerful and dedicated party propaganda machine masquerading as news media (Fox) that manages to manipulate and frame the political discourse for the rest of the media, plus a capillary network of “talk radio” stations throughout the country that further amplify the noise (and no, MSNBC doesn’t even begin to balance things out, and if you think so you are absolutely deluded); c) a large portion of American evangelical and fundamentalist churches support the Right’s agenda because they've bought into the peculiar concept of “morality” that suits the Republican party (where sex is a moral issue, unless it is a pastor or Newt Gingrich who commits the deed, while obscene income disparity, raping of the environment, white collar crimes and so forth somehow don’t show up on the morality radar screen); d) Wall Street (particularly, but not only, Goldman Sachs) and other super-rich individuals and corporations now have unlimited political access — thanks to a recent, truly despicable, Supreme Court decision — so that they can buy all the elections they want; e) the American public is certainly no more savvy than the Italian counterpart (creationism, anyone? Or climate change denial? Or vaccine-autism connection?); f) the Democratic party is just as spineless as the Italian center-left coalition has been for the past several decades.

The result is the continued decline — economic, cultural, and ethical — of both countries. And there is no end in sight, I’m afraid. Only three things could possibly reverse the trend, and they are all under fierce (and by no means random) fire by the Republicans: unions (see Wisconsin), public education (see everywhere in the country), and more political participation (see the Republicans’ constant assault on political enfranchisement).

Republicans — like their Italian counterparts — have managed to convince Americans that public employees are overpaid bastards who don’t want to share in the necessary sacrifices that it will take to save America (while at the same time, naturally, we keep pumping billions into the hands of the super-rich). They have also convinced most American workers that unions — certainly not perfect in themselves, but the only organized resistance against the erosion of the middle class — are a communist ploy bent on undermining “the American way” of life (which, let us not forget, despite Glenn Beck's style of historical revisionism, was made possible by an initial double whammy of slavery and genocide).

Americans — like Italians across the pond — have been bamboozled by fear mongering (the communists! the terrorists! the nazi-social-communists!), lulled by endless mindless entertainment (so-called “reality” television and countless completely inane morning and afternoon shows), and when all else fails discouraged and in many cases simply barred from voting (naturally, since in both countries the majority of those having a right to vote lean much further to the left than to the right). Ever wondered why the US elections are held for one day only, in the middle of the week? In Italy at least they take two days, and they are carried out on weekends, to maximize participation. Ever asked yourself why Republicans are so obsessed with solving the non-existent problem of illegal immigrants somehow sneaking into the voting booth, which continuously results in the Republican party passing laws and ordinances that actually end up turning away scores of legitimate voters from the underclasses, the very same ones that, surprise surprise!, tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?

All of this has established a de facto plutocracy in both countries — much more so in the US than in Italy — a plutocracy that keeps its power through the expenditure of huge amounts of money to buy politicians and courts, and thanks to continuous devious propaganda to convince Tea Partiers and assorted simpletons that they, the super-rich, are really on the side of Joe the Plumber.

There are only two things that can possibly reverse this state of affairs: a concerted, multi-decade, extremely canny counter-initiative by the Democrats (similar to the one initiated by Reagan more than three decades ago), or a revolution. The former isn’t likely to happen given the recent history of the Democratic party and its inept leaders (some of whom, of course, are almost as bad as their counterparts across the isle). The latter is not going to happen until things get much, much worse for the majority of Americans, as they probably will due to one final fatal overreach by the Plutocracy.

In the meantime, venting in this blog posting has gotten me a bit depressed. Anyone like to join me for a nice dry, dirty martini, while we can still afford one?

I'd like to see you do a post on what's wrong with progressives. And by "wrong" I don't mean, "they don't try hard enough," or "they compromise too much." I mean wrong in the same way you just criticized Republicans. Tell us about some of the foolish conspiracy theories liberals believe, their denials of scientific consensus, or their over simplistic explanations of complex phenomena (you can't start with your own claim that the financial crisis was caused by "sheer greed"). If you can't, then that proves you major problems with bracketing out your rationality when it comes to politics.

An excellent righteous vent, Massimo. If I wasn't a non-believer, I'd say "Amen" to that. You didn't mince words. Kudos to you for saying out loud that there are still a lot of outright racist people in America who are thrashing in ire because he have a black President. I like that. Even MSNBC hesitates to call a spade a spade in this regard. I'll join you for some read wine, though, I don't like cocktails. Does someone have anything to say that an give a boost to my usual optimism, this post deflated it.

You mean the ability to take money from investors by simply manipulating the apparatus that was supposed to distribute assets commensurate with earnings, and to thus take assets without earning them, is not unmitigated greed?

First, I have been reading "The Macro Polity," and I wonder if you've read it. The main thesis that on the aggregate the electorate behaves more rationally than its individuals, is a salve of sorts for the type of mood you seem to have today. Have you found any succor there?

I wish you would reconsider your critique of popular culture. Reality television is less Bread and Circus than you might imagine. Remember, Socrates went "down" to the Agora, and, I would encourage you, as a public intellectual, to be less dismissive of the public (and their taste). A liberal democracy must allow Snooki, her fans and those who love hating her into the same voting booth.

Dido Simon. The state of this country is pretty depressing. I see people all around me blind to the political situation around them. Oftentimes when I try to speak about it I get the "politics is too stressful" or "both sides say the other one is wrong, so why should I believe you?" reaction. Today I read in the paper that Charlie Sheen, you know the guy who has abused women for decades (I'd like to see a minority or a women get away with half the stuff he does), has a one man show which sold out in a day. My fellow men around me would rather watch Jersey Shore or Charlie Sheen than give a moment of thought to issues of importance.

In Argentina we had an acceptable democracy going on. Sure, it was far from perfect but there was participation an a lot of parties to choose from. The people were (and still are) as stupid as they could get, but that's the same in every country, I fathom. Recently we had a reform that limits the ability of parties to be elected and I'm afraid we are headed to a defacto bi-partisanism. See, in order to participate in elections a party must be voted by at least 2% of the electorate in the previous election and have a certain number of affiliates. This, of course, only strengthens big parties and crushes small ones out of the picture. In the meantime, the current administration is gathering more control of the mass media every day.

I agree. That is pretty much the way I see things as they stand as well. I am a 'what does the evidence support' kind of guy and you have pretty much assessed the evidence as I do and it does not support a great deal of hope for improvement. Barring the appearance of an exceptionally charismatic science and civic communicator things will continue to get worse until they finally break. That may take a while (I predict a couple of decades). What happens then? Well you just need to figure out how many people (and or robots) are required to keep the rich in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. The rest of humanity will then be considered superfluous and I'll give you one guess what happens to them at that point. Choice cardboard shack in a toxic slum or elimination? Decisions decisions.

One thing I am curious about though since you seem to de-emphasize goals. 'America as it is' is apparently causing you anguish because you are comparing it to 'America as it might be'. Would it be enough then if science education and civic participation were better and resources were more fairly distributed? Would that be enough or would that 'America as it might be' have to do something as well?

Sadly I can't join you in that drink. I've never been able to stand the smell or taste of alcohol. A fact I've had cause to regret on several occasions when getting drunk would probably have been an appropriate response.

The Friday after this one I am buying you a martini. And at least a couple for myself. As you well know, I very much share your concern. I have said this before here, but Obama's presidency has actually made me feel more negative about the prospects for the US than that of the Smirking Chimp. Obama's presidency was, I feel, the best chance the US had and, clearly, things are still getting worse.

Ever wondered why the US elections are held for one day only, in the middle of the week? In Italy at least they take two days, and they are carried out on weekends, to maximize participation.

This is interesting. In Australia voting is compulsory, and although there is an official voting day (which is always on a weekend, Saturday usually), citizens can register their vote earlier if they want to avoid the weekend crowds.

I've always wondered which was more moral: voluntary or compulsory voting? I've heard arguments for both, usually along the lines of individual freedom versus social obligation. Lately I find the latter argument more compelling, and so I support compulsory voting. As a politically-minded friend of mine put it, since citizens benefit from being members of a democratic state, it's only fair that they accept certain duties, one being the duty to participate in the election process.

In any case, a compulsory voting system would render useless the sort of sneakiness Massimo mentioned above, since everyone has to vote anyway, regardless of what day the voting is held on, and extensions and/or penalties would be required to ensure that all citizens vote.

Neal, you might not have noticed, but I am a progressive, which I consider a philosophically coherent and compassionate philosophy, so obviously I cannot criticize progressives "in the same way" as a I do Republicans. That said, I never argued the progressives have a monopoly on rationality (e.g., 9/11 conspiracy theorists) or science (new age types).

Hector, grazie, salute!

OneDay,

> The main thesis that on the aggregate the electorate behaves more rationally than its individuals, is a salve of sorts for the type of mood you seem to have today. Have you found any succor there? <

Not really. I've looked into "wisdom of the crowds" research, and I find it limited and somewhat unconvincing. And if you look at the recent elections in both the US and Italy there is little to find comfort with.

> I wish you would reconsider your critique of popular culture. Reality television is less Bread and Circus than you might imagine. <

I do "sit down in the agora," and I have nothing against pop culture per se. But even with pop culture there are levels of quality, some of which go down to the level of trashiness, and I find no redeeming values at those levels, only a sad reflection of how many fellow humans have been reduced to unthinking hedonists.

Norwegian,

> Loved almost all of it ... but "quasi-black"? WTF! <

I was referring to the simple fact that Obama is of mixed descent. Despite what he looks like, there is no biologically sensible reason for us to think that he is more black than he is white. And of course his upbringing was anything other than typical for blacks in this country. Yet, progressives ignored that and declared the beginning of post-racialism, and conservatives ignore that and kept on going with their racism.

Thameron,

> 'America as it is' is apparently causing you anguish because you are comparing it to 'America as it might be'. Would it be enough then if science education and civic participation were better and resources were more fairly distributed? Would that be enough or would that 'America as it might be' have to do something as well? <

I'm not sure that it would be enough if those conditions were met, but it would be a hell of a good start! And I suspect that under those conditions you would begin to see a different America on the international scene. Consider, for instance, data showing that Americans actually support a much larger amount of money to go for international causes, but they think the US already spends orders of magnitude more than it actually does. That's ignorance pure and simple (fostered by the Republicans war on eduction and by their propaganda), and it has consequences.

Massimo,I think you are correct in your assessment of thinking there is not much hope in the Democratic party as it is constituted right now. So change has to come from below from progressive social movements. Seems like relying on the Democratic party and the election of lesser of evil candidates just won't work.

Can I pass on the martini and switch it out for a double shot of Irish whiskey on the rocks? Oh at your place? A martini will be fine. Thanks :)

RE voting: There are lots of states in which one can vote prior to official election day - absentee ballots (you don't actually have to be absent from town to use one), etc. But lots of people don't know about that, it isn't widely publicized, and it takes some advance planning and maybe a trip to the courthouse, which is a hassle.

"Despite what he looks like, there is no biologically sensible reason for us to think that he is more black than he is white."

Isn't that kind of the case for nearly all African-Americans? That is, isn't it so that those who are labeled as "black" in this country have a substantial amount of European ancestry - perhaps sometimes even more than their African ancestry? And yet because of the legacy in this country of the antiquated, sinister and horseshit "one drop rule," anyone with the slightest African ancestry is automatically "black."

There's something amusingly redundant about the term "mixed marriages" in this country - e.g., a black person and a white person getting married, and their children being thereby labeled as "biracial" or "mixed race" - when the "black" parent is mixed to begin with! (To say nothing of the white parent, of course - I mean, what is it to be "white" in this country but to be a genetic salad of many different European nationalities? For myself, I can point to six European countries - and two Native American tribes - that produced my ancestors.)

Of course, in Obama's case, calling him bi-racial isn't redundant. His father is 100% African and his mother (I'm assuming) is 100% European. But this is what it means to be "black" in the USA: the slightest degree of African ancestry makes you "black", never mind the rest of your pedigree.

"Race" is an outdated and intellectually bankrupt concept as far as I'm concerned, and the sooner it's discarded from the collective understanding of society, the better.

Run third-party candidates who will contractually obligate themselves to vote in congress or the senate according to the results of an online voting system through which constituents can vote on each and every piece of legislation. You can replace the representative system altogether without passing any laws. Each district can then control their own rules for voting on legislation, while the representative becomes a simple Ombudsman. As a side benefit, lobbying and the power of money over legislative bodies will disintegrate.

I don't think you will remember your own quote, but, first, let's thank the internet gods that make it possible to congratulate you for such an inspired comment on evolution, and then I'd like to congratulate your self for this cozy philosofical reduct in the web where I ought to spend some time in the future!

The quote: "Evolution is like a rubicks cube (this first part of the quote was kinda nonsense, but perfectly comprehensible after one hour and a half of lecture! continue:). Some times it does incredibly complex things when all that it's acualy doing is sharping the pencils"

James, as nice as that sounds, I believe that would be an awful idea. It would turn this country into democracy by instant opinion poll, with no deliberation, essentially mob rule. The is a reason why we are a representative democracy.

James, ditto on Massimo's response. I have no desire to substitute direct democracy (a.k.a. mob rule) for representative democracy - an idea which, btw, is even more politically challenged than what I have in mind.

Preference voting (e.g. IRV) and proportional representation are already in practice in many parts of the world. We could use them here, is all I'm saying.

Racism in America has "progressed" from intolerance of blacks (quasi or otherwise) as lesser valued "humans," to tolerance of blacks as perhaps fully human, but with somehow lesser social or "family" values. Republicans, who believe in a winners versus losers social order, have no problem targeting Obama as somehow a loser in spite of his clearly superior attributes, which for their back country constituents, must represent some magical talent for intelligent mimicry. Still "passin' for white" they'd like to call it. But in time, this too shall pass.

Thanks for the rant Massimo! I enjoyed it. My only question is how much evidence do we really have that racism is a significant factor in the non-democrats motivations? It's an easy claim to make and there are plenty of examples to point at, but imagine if Obama had no African ancestry but all the rest was the same?

I expect the opposition would put up as ugly and hateful a fight as they are now, simply because that is how they inspire their base and regain power. Racism obviously wouldn't be part of their strategy but their desire for power would remain undiminished.

My point being that if racism is rampant in the opposition (as it seems to be) it might be a by-product of their strategy for power, not a motivation in and of itself.

If countries run better through the guidance of the best people, why have democracy at all? Why not just let those "best people" run things?

"... this country into democracy by instant opinion poll, with no deliberation, essentially mob rule" - Massimo

Seventeenth century Britain called, they want their ideas back. Where did the sudden love for aristocrats come from?

Kidding aside, your concern is a common mistake. The logic of it goes something like: people are idiots, so everything would go to hell if they weren't under the "guidance" of their betters. It's the argument aristocrats have always made against democrats (real democrats, not the aristocrats who call themselves Democrats). To a large degree, the mistake is encouraged by democrats waisting their time with "wisdom of crowds" nonsense. Let's just say it bluntly: democracy does not generate the best decisions. That's just a fact. If what you want best decisions, you need to go elsewhere. A king perhaps.

The purpose of Democracy is not to generate great policy and perfect social order, but to generate better citizens. Citizens become better citizens by exercising civil powers (nod to virtue ethics intended). Citizens can only exercise civil powers when they have access to them. Do I have to mention that voting is an atomic unit of civil power?

You don't wait until you have a society of Einsteins before you give them power; you give them power and watch as a civilization of Einsteins emerges. Said another way: good citizens are not the result of good policy; good policy is the result of good citizens.

The concern that deliberation would disappear is ludicrous. Deliberation disappears when power is locked up in the hands of a minority. Direct democracy would usher in a level of participatory deliberation, the likes of which the world has never seen. Think Habermas, but on crack.

P.S. proportional representation tries to square the circle. It's just busy work in my opinion. There is a small mountain of research about the problems of representing populations through mechanisms that employ more than two choices (like proportional representation). Granted, a lot of those problems wash out with asynchronous voting, but no one has tried that yet, so....

James, my argument may be common, but I don't think it is mistaken. First of all, most people in most democracies are, unfortunately, badly educated and easy to manipulate. But the point is that we elect representatives so that they can a) inform themselves on issues before deliberating, and b) deliberate with other representatives to reach compromises. Neither function can be performed by a large citizenry, which is why instant voting is a bad idea.

That said, we still need to do anything possible to make sure that functions (a) and (be) above are actually performed, and that people vote with their facts straight and as much critical thinking as possible.

"First of all, most people in most democracies are, unfortunately, badly educated and easy to manipulate" - Massimo

Of course they are badly educated; that's my point. What better motivation to educate a population than putting power in their hands? Direct democracy will result in massive investments into education. Who want a stupid citizenry holding the reigns of power? What will happen when a billion lobbies are trying to appeal directly to citizens rather than courting representatives?

"But the point is that we elect representatives so that they can a) inform themselves on issues before deliberating, and b) deliberate with other representatives to reach compromises. Neither function can be performed by a large citizenry, which is why instant voting is a bad idea." - Massimo

Not only CAN both functions be performed by a large citizenry, but they can ONLY be performed by a large citizenry. Besides, direct democracy does not rule out representatives, it just doesn't require them. If people want to vote according to someone's advice, then all the more power to them. More importantly, why do I use the strong "ONLY"?

Consider that people are "easy to manipulate", juxtaposed the requirement to "make sure that functions (a) and (b) above are actually performed." This is an untenable contradiction. If people don't have what it takes to conduct themselves politically, they wont be able to be watchdogs either. It takes more expertise to make sure someone is doing a job properly than it takes to do the actual job. The only check on representatives is a citizenry that is as knowledgeable as the representatives are. Said another way: representatives are only as capable as the citizenry that watches over them.

The worry over compromise suffers the same failing. What's the difference between a representative properly compromising and a representative who isn't? There is no way to determine the difference but by a populace properly aware of the importance of compromise and how to pursue it. If they have that expertise, why need the representative?

I understand the worries. And as direct democracy and pseudo-direct democracy grow in strength and popularity, there will surely be many eye-rolling moments. But at this point, I think the cat is out of the bag. Communications technology will ultimately render representatives redundant.

> What better motivation to educate a population than putting power in their hands? Direct democracy will result in massive investments into education. <

That strikes me as an incredibly optimistic view of things, and potentially very dangerous. Sorry, I'm less unhappy with representative democracy than I would be with a bunch of ignorant and easy to manipulate people making instant decisions about wars, the environment, gay rights, etc. etc. etc.

But on the other hand, are you conceding that Republicans are not ignorant, not easy to manipulate, and fully capable of making decisions about wars, the environment, gay rights, etc etc? And above all else, far better than the majority of Americans?

If representative democracy secures us from the ignorant and easy to manipulate, and Republicans are representatives, it must follow that Republicans are not ignorance or easy to manipulate and must be fully capable of making " decisions about wars, the environment, gay rights, etc etc". Or at least, they must be more apt than the majority of Americans.

James, I'm afraid it's pretty optimistic all right. Under direct democracy, segregation would have been in force for an extra decade, "sodomy" would probably still be illegal, and trade protectionism would be in complete force. Sure, maybe more direct democracy would lead to more engagement, but how much more? Not enough, that's how much.

For goodness' sake, think of yourself and other readers of this blog. Most of us are pretty engaged. Nonetheless, we just can't know enough about everything to vote responsibly on all issues. I am relying on somebody else to have a clue about what monetary policies my country should adopt, because I don't have the foggiest notion, and what's more, I don't particularly want to. So I am delegating the task of understanding all that stuff to people who either themselves know, or have good advisors.

@JamesOur forefathers hated the idea of [unrepresentative] democracy. They referred to it in many of their writings as a mob rule. The Federalist Papers are a good read, in that, they predicted many of scenarios we face today. Their intent for our [republic]an form of government was to have a right wing pushing America toward anarchy and a left wing pushing America toward tyranny.

The result, in theory, is a country that stays somewhere near the center. It seems to work. We get Republicans, just long enough for them to screw up the country, and then we democrats just long enough for them to screw up the country.

Adriana asked for someone to say something to cheer her up earlier. Perhaps an analysis [jest] of one of her posts will suffice. She has a story that suggests that the leap from monkey to man was the result of a monkey loosing some of its DNA. In other words, we could reject the notion that man "evolved" from monkeys and replace it with the notion that man "devolved" from monkeys. Devolution would be a good explanation for politics.

'Under direct democracy, segregation would have been in force for an extra decade, "sodomy" would probably still be illegal, and trade protectionism would be in complete force' - ianpollock

Completely errant.

"For goodness' sake, think of yourself and other readers of this blog. Most of us are pretty engaged. Nonetheless, we just can't know enough about everything to vote responsibly on all issues. I am relying on somebody else to have a clue about what monetary policies my country should adopt, because I don't have the foggiest notion, and what's more, I don't particularly want to. So I am delegating the task of understanding all that stuff to people who either themselves know, or have good advisors." - ianpollock

And what does that have to do with direct democracy? If you want to vote according to someone's advice, no one would stop you. Ah, but that's it is it? You don't want protection from your own ignorance, but from the ignorance of others. Isn't that it?

Look, here's what would most likely happen. People will quickly find that organizing their voting around something like parties - themselves organized around something like experts - would deliver much needed structure, political predictability, and brokering power. Ask any political scientist: parties are self-forming in any conceivable democracy. You couldn't get rid of them if you wanted to. I would suggest facilitating vote delegation in a direct voting system, but it would happen whether it was facilitated or not. Really, the idea that legislation could conceivably pass without the backing of expertise is astonishingly naive. Who do you think would put together legislation that would convince a majority?

The idea that a direct voting mechanism would necessarily languish in some kind of misdirected voting chaos, mob rule, even anarchy, romantically and self-servingly ignores everything we know about how people engage socially (hint: they like hierarchy and authority). They will do what they always do: seek out experts they trust, and rally around those views. What we have now is a network of aristocrats whose benevolent wisdom supposedly protects us from our own ignorance. How lucky for us.

I'm simply drop-jawed that there's more support for the likes of Sarah Palin than for direct democracy. Apparently the only thing more dangerous than Republicans are Americans. If I was American, I might even be insulted.

@James>Forefathers? I'm not American. The speculations of American forefathers means little to me.

In that case, your ignorance is excused. You see, we've seen first hand the benefits of those speculations. (i.e. Airplanes, Longer life expectancy, TV, Phones, Affordable cars, The internet that makes this discussion possible, etc, etc) You'll have a hard time selling "direct democracy" to us.

If American politics is a joke, our South African politics is a circus :).

Still, I liked the digression from the usual out and out philosophical matter. Massimo could perhaps cover the hangover from the Martini next, or at the very least the existential epiphanies it no doubt triggered.

What ignorance? I know what they said; it simply doesn't matter. Much like their defense of slavery. Your American triumphalism is duly noted though. In typical fashion, it's wildly misplaced.

As for it being difficult to convince Americans of direct democracy, you should know that there are really only two significant examples of direct democracy in contemporary usage: Switzerland and the United States. Yes, many states have some version of direct democracy. Anything else you want to know about your country?

James, neither Switzerland nor the US have anything like direct democracy. The closes it gets in the US is the ballot-type initiatives that keep being adopted in California, which are an excellent example of why direct democracy is a disaster.

Californians apparently figured out that they want more and more benefit, but do not want to pay for them. So they keep passing straightjacketing measures that now essentially make it impossible for California legislators and Governor to govern. Nicely done.

I'd like to emphasize Ian's comment (particularly the last part): I am relying on somebody else to have a clue about what monetary policies my country should adopt, because I don't have the foggiest notion, and what's more, I don't particularly want to.

Precisely. Direct democracy is a nice idea for small/manageable groups of political animals (of which I, too, am not).

Come to think of it, that seems an apt description of a governmental body (e.g. a legislature, executive office, or court), although even those have a tendency to grow into large, complex, and hierarchical organizations. [I seem to recall that Jared Diamond explains this phenomenon in Guns, Germs, and Steel as a function of societal scale and human cognitive limits.]

In any case, we know that electoral reforms (like preference voting and proportional representation, not to mention anti-corruption laws) work for large-scale polities. That some folks would find even those unsatisfying is unsurprising. After all, you can't please everyone.

Diamond's point about the limitations of human cognition helps guarantee that humans will organize into representative structures even when they are allowed to vote directly. If you buy into his argument, you'll agree with me that hierarchal structures will naturally emerge with a direct democracy. Direct voting doesn't need to be outlawed in order to facilitate hierarchy.

James, read carefully what I wrote. No state in the US has direct democracy in the sense you proposed at the beginning of this thread. They do have a partial version of it, and it's horrible. I don't see the contradiction.

I can very much sympathize, although I can only cry in my beer, not being able to afford my taste in champagne. But as a thumbnail sketch – the world according to Jim, and a few more cogent observers of the scene – one might argue that, as you have done, the Religious Right – those benighted inhabitants of JesusLand – is a proximate cause for many of our problems – personal, countries & world – and offer these quotes:

There are in America [circa 1942] from fifteen to twenty million religious fundamentalists who are dedicated to doctrines incompatible with democracy in that they insist upon their prerogatives as first principles. An even larger group feebly follows the trail of fire breathed by these fundamentalists. They are the most dangerous minority we have because they categorically eschew the reasoned judgments of the majority. Democracy properly allows them the right to worship as they choose. It should never have conceded them the right to establish schools. Education is not a function of any church – or even a city – or a state; it is a function of all mankind. [Generation of Vipers; Philip Wylie; pg 325]

In which regard, I note in the Wikipedia article on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that it has been signed by the US in 1995, but is not yet ratified, a rather unflattering position that the US shares with Somalia and which President Obama has termed “an embarrassment” . But one of those rights is the right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” which many argue is abrogated by the religious indoctrination, a form of religious abuse, by fundamentalist parents of their children. And the well known and highly regarded British psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, quoted extensively in Dawkins’ The God Delusion, argues in a paper of his – “What Shall We Tell The Children?” – that such abrogation is a very close analog to female genital mutilation. He also argues – based on a number of papers by an American jurist, James G. Dwyer, including some printed in a UCLA Law Review – that parents’-rights are not an inalienable right and which should be circumscribed or limited by a child’s right “not to have their minds addled by nonsense”. I would very much like to see you address the issue, possibly from a dispassionate scientific or philosophic perspective of course.

But, interestingly, it seems that many in the Religious Right are, in fact, stepping back from the brink and recognizing that maybe they might have gone overboard a little. For instance, on the topic of religious abuse, an American Pastor, Keith Wright, wrote a book titled “Religious Abuse: A Pastor Explores The Many Ways That Religion Can Hurt as Well” – and that’s a mouthful in more ways than one – which observes, in the Forward, that

Most of us have been reared to believe that when God or the church is mentioned, our response must always be positive, else we are not faithful folk. Thus, a fearful guilt or even recoil is likely to accompany any criticism – as though to disagree is to shake a fist at God. The church tends to define God with great certainty, and any human disagreement is thus condemned with certitude as well. Too often, what is missing is that the church refuses to be reflective. It avoids criticism and seems to prefer to put out questionable truths rather than risk having its behaviour questioned or its power reined in. [pg 10];

And this from a Southern Baptist, no slouch in the science department [http://www.weylmann.com/], suggests some further cracks in the facade that might be letting in a little bit of light, not to mention some sanity, reason and humanity:

As a life-long Southern Baptist, I have become disgusted with the hypocrisy of American Christians—their love of war, of the military, of lies, of torture, of moral exceptionalism, of money, of greed and of corporate criminality. ... The Christian churches of America no longer have anything to teach me. In 2000, our pastor told the congregation that "a vote for Al Gore is a vote for Satan."

"Diamond's point about the limitations of human cognition helps guarantee that humans will organize into representative structures even when they are allowed to vote directly."So now that this has happened in virtually every precinct in the US, why is it being argued we should in effect dissolve the hierarchy and start all over again?

Adam M. You said: “While it's an interesting article, I'm still confused as to why Canada is on the map.”

Good point. As a Canadian I don’t recollect buying into any American Manifest Destiny, although I, and probably many other Canadians, will be happy to subscribe to “Liberty and Education”, particularly as I’ve already cancelled my subscription to the resurrection (Christian in any case). Although at least a different colour [Green might usefully afflict the overly comfortable here] would have been a nice gesture or recognition of a right to a freedom of choice in the matter …

"James, read carefully what I wrote. No state in the US has direct democracy in the sense you proposed at the beginning of this thread. They do have a partial version of it, and it's horrible. I don't see the contradiction." - Massimo

If you meant my brand of direct democracy, you should have said so. I'm not a mind reader; only a text reader. I never said any state had the form of direct democracy I outlined at the beginning. So, what was your point in pointing out that [my particular brand] of direct democracy was not present in the United States or Switzerland?

'"Diamond's point about the limitations of human cognition helps guarantee that humans will organize into representative structures even when they are allowed to vote directly.'So now that this has happened in virtually every precinct in the US, why is it being argued we should in effect dissolve the hierarchy and start all over again?' - jeremybee

I don't know. Who has argued that? Massimo and others argued for a different form election, then it was argued that FPTP couldn't be changed, and I showed them how it could be changed. At what point do you think it was suggested that you should 'in effect dissolve the hierarchy and start all over again'?

But since you asked! As I indicated above, a turn toward direct democracy is a progressive turn toward good citizenship (aka. a better society).

Though it sounds like Massimo and I massively disagree, we're not saying radically different things. He believes that proportional representation managed from the top down is a more effective tool toward safeguarding the interests of society, while I believe that proportionate representation is better managed from the bottom up. We each believe that there is room for improvement in a FPTP system (my country has FPTP too), and in general that societies could be better organized, and probably most importantly, that people could be better citizens.

>I don't know. Who has argued that? Massimo and others argued for a different form election, then it was argued that FPTP couldn't be changed, and I showed them how it could be changed. At what point do you think it was suggested that you should 'in effect dissolve the hierarchy and start all over again'?<When you showed them how it could be changed?

Oh! I see what you mean. When I say "change", I don't mean "dissolve the hierarchy" at all.

I suggested subsuming the party system beneath a direct democracy mechanism that is voted into place at the district level as if it were a representative (and could be voted out again in four years). The point is that it would provide the possibility of representing political interests that don't fit cleanly into the Republican/Democrat divide. It's very possible that people would simply continue to vote along republican democrat lines, but I have a feeling that over time that would erode into a wider variety of more dynamic parties.

"James, I was reacting to the broad idea of direct democracy, pointing out that the limited California experiment is a disaster. Not sure what else I need to say to make my point clearer." - Massimo

Were you? Moments before the above comment, you made this comment:

"James, read carefully what I wrote. No state in the US has direct democracy in the sense you proposed at the beginning of this thread. They do have a partial version of it, and it's horrible. I don't see the contradiction." - Massimo

So which is it? Were you talking about "direct democracy in the sense proposed at the beginning of this thread" or "reacting to the broad idea of direct democracy"?

James, I must be particularly dense these days. I thought *you* at the beginning of the thread were talking about direct democracy broadly speaking. Which is why I don't see a contradiction in what I wrote. If I misunderstood you, then please restate what do you mean by "direct democracy."

James, it looks like you lost a few us, so to restore some clarity, here's the comment of yours that I was focused on:

Run third-party candidates who will contractually obligate themselves to vote in congress or the senate according to the results of an online voting system through which constituents can vote on each and every piece of legislation.

As a former active member of a state "third party" (viz. NY Greens), I've come across "radical democratic" policy proposals like this one before, and I value democracy enough to take them seriously. But it doesn't change what I said above (especially the part that I borrowed from Ian).

My sense is that, if there's one thing that both progressive and conservative voters generally have in common, it's that they want their leaders to lead. In other words, they want their leaders to assume decision-making responsibilities to which they can be held accountable later on. They want to elect individuals whom they deem qualified to make these decisions (according to their respective and contrasting views of what "qualified" means), who know more and understand the legislative process and public policy better (again, according to their ideology/moral narrative) than the average joe. It's usually a full-time job (and, at state & national levels, often more than that), which most of us decline to even apply for - partly because the application process is so grueling, but also out of humility and a desire to pursue a different career in life. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's simply another example of the division of labor, which (like complexity and hierarchy) is a property we can reliably expect from any society that's larger than, say, a tribal band and which also strives to achieve some version of democracy.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. Even if the consequences of implementing that online voting scheme were net positive (which, like Massimo, I strongly doubt), I believe it's a political non-starter in that it clashes with common understandings and values concerning what it means to "go into politics" and "to serve the public."

@ Adam M. said... Though I seem to get your drift about your ponderations. It seems quite simple that if there wasn't that big blue mass usually called (and Rightly so) "Canada" on the graphic, the blue portion would actually seem quite small compared to "Jesus Land".

The article trying to make the point that Jesuslanders are somehow a fanatical minority or at the very least a big nuisance, it would be a much tougher sell without Canada annexed for the cause of the argument of Blueness.

Furthermore, the graphic doesn't take into account which parts of Canada would actually be pink as well... so it's just an illustration for imginary random ideas, really.

I've also worked for political parties (mostly NDP, but also green and PC - in Canada), and there has been a lot of support for direct democracy and proxie based systems (and Canadians are by and large more conservative than Americans about this kind of stuff). People stress leadership when they already assume that someone is going to vote for them. We people are asked about something they do themselves (but that someone else could do better) they rarely stress leadership skills.

Here, I think this will help. Forget direct democracy for the moment. Imagine that people are NOT allowed to vote directly on legislation. People are only allowed to cast votes that other people have given them. These "leaders" collect baskets of votes for particular pieces of legislation, or for general use, depending on the desire of the citizen who handed it to them. They can cast these baskets against legislation, or and their baskets to other leaders. Though retaining a dynamic potential, imagine this situation stabilizes over time into a somewhat complex web of social relationships. Then imagine that people can vote directly if they want.

What I've described is how politics actually works. I'm only suggesting that the mechanisms through which politics are expressed be formalized. Ironically, direct democracy would result, not in less representation, but more.

Massimo,

Well, if you have time, reread what's been said. You made two separate objections that depended on contradictory grounds. If you didn't mean the grounds to be contradictory, then one of your objections falls. It's not critical though. I've responded to your objections.

That doesn’t seem all that logical, to me in any case. That seems to imply that if you set up a system of “direct voting” – i.e. direct democracy – that then permits representation which then “prohibits” direct democracy which nullifies the representation which …

Nor does it seem correct. I see from the Wikipedia article on “Direct Democracy” that “Many countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: initiative, referendum (plebiscite), and recall.”

I have no need for a glorified poll taker. I do, however, have a need for a political decision-maker - particularly one who represents my progressive values, but who also bears other traits that I believe are well-suited to the job.

This way, I can spend my time in other ways. Let someone else read & write lengthy legislation, debate amendments, rally enough votes for passage (e.g. via deal-cutting), etc. And let that be someone that I trust enough to vote for, but who is also accountable (e.g. via recall, impeachment, or failure to be re-elected), in case they royally screw up.

Fortunately, there are plenty of political animals out there, who are willing & able to take this job on. Unfortunately, in most cases, the dominant electoral system here in the US biases the choices in such a way that tends to make a mockery of representative democracy.

The existence of representatives does not prohibit direct democracy; representative democracy prohibits direct democracy. Representative democracy is more than the mere existence of representatives. It includes, among other things, a general prohibition against citizens voting directly.

Allowing for initiatives, referendums, and recalls, means allowing at the discretion of elected representatives, and therein lies the difference. Where there are mechanisms appended to a representative democracies which allow initiatives and so forth to proceed whether or elected representatives allow them, we call those mechanisms direct democracy.

Whenever an elected representative is required by law to pass and/or implement the result of a direct vote (e.g. an initiative or referendum), I think it's fair to describe that as a case of direct democracy's prohibiting representative democracy. In other words, the representative is prohibited in that case from using his/her own judgment in making a political decision.

Yet there are plenty of other ways, besides a direct vote, for members of the electorate to influence a policy decision (e.g. letters, call-ins, town-meeting appearances, staff jobs, etc.). We tend to call these practices "participation" or "activism", rather than "direct democracy", as the latter has come to mean strictly a direct vote. Nonetheless, they do constitute a form of "direct democracy" - one that (at least some, if not most) folks believe to be a more legitimate form.

"In other words, the representative is prohibited in that case from using his/her own judgement in making a political decision." - jsm

But that need not necessarily be the case. Examples where a certain kind of representative's power has been suspended for a special event is not evidence that direct democracy is contrary to representation. My argument is that it is fully possible to have both representatives and direct voting at the same time, on the same day, acting against the same piece of legislation. This is something that cannot be done in a representative democracy. Representative democracy, by definition, necessarily prohibits direct voting.

It's a mistake to say that direct democracy necessarily is strictly so. Proxies are a common feature of almost ALL proposals for direct democracy. Even direct mechanisms which have no other formal provisions still exist in a storm of organization rallying support for or against, and spokespersons arguing that a vote for or against represents the interests of voters in some particular way. When one says direct democracy, one is only saying that the ability to vote directly is the primary means by which legislation is enacted.

'Nonetheless, [participatory practices] do constitute a form of "direct democracy" - one that (at least some, if not most) folks believe to be a more legitimate form.' - jsm

Participatory practices are not democratic. It would be like saying that beating rioters with a billy bat is a democratic mechanism because it is compatible with democracy. Ruling involves directing power. Democracy means power directed by the people. Where is the power in participatory practices? There is no power; only hopes and wishes. They are the political version of begging. These activities are not about ruling and so cannot be democratic. Granted, they are not antithetical to democracy, but that doesn't make them democratic. Need I add that there's nothing about direct voting that prohibits letters, call-ins, town-meeting appearances, staff jobs, or activism?

Thus, participatory activities are not a more "legitimate form". If they were, we would elect representatives by means of writing letters rather than voting - a prospect as appealing as it is impossible. Participatory activities fail to be more "legitimate forms" of democracy because they fail to be democratic forms at all.

Examples where a certain kind of representative's power has been suspended for a special event is not evidence that direct democracy is contrary to representation.

By "a certain kind of representative's power", do you mean the representative's power to vote according to his/her conscience on a particular policy - even if it differs from that of his/her constituency? If so, then what makes you think that I would want to suspend that power for even a single "special event"?

As I've been trying to explain, I have no such desire (for reasons that overlap with Massimo's, but which also go beyond that). More to the point, if these "special events" constitute what you are calling "direct democracy", then each occurrence of direct democracy is indeed contrary to representative democracy, as it's commonly understood, and nicely summed up by the following:

"The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives [and] not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives." Source

Think about the difference for awhile, and reread my last comment, which you have also failed to understood.

I should note too that despite the obvious bias of the wikipedia entry{1}, it agrees with me.

1: The "swift and resolute initiative" nonsense is particularly comical. The legislative branch is valued for its deliberative capacity, exactly the opposite of swiftness and resolute initiative - its the executive branch that has those qualities. It should be noted as well that proxy representatives have limited power only with regard to the value of their vote; that is, they only vote with a power equal to the number of people who have given them votes to cast.

that graphic is obscene. are you kidding me? I live in California there is no liberty or education. What because we have san fran now we're this pinnacle of enlightenment? BS San fran is filled with two types of people - hippies and people who think they are better than everyone else. My fiance can't get the job she deserves with her education because she's not bilingual. Unemployment is ridiculous, almost 9% of houses are vacant in CA. This state sucks balls, there's no way its going to get any better either. And Canada? wtf is all I have to say.

At your suggestion, I re-read your earlier comment, and it's not at all clear to me how it could possibly invalidate my last reply to it.

Sure, I suppose I could have responded in-line to your assertion that "it is fully possible to have both representatives and direct voting at the same time, on the same day, acting against the same piece of legislation." But my point was that one would have to already accept a definition of "representative democracy" that allows for the suspension of "a certain kind of representative's power" that I maintain is indispensable to its definition (i.e. that the underlying concept is practically useless without it) - namely, the power to decide against the wishes of the electorate.

After all, a "representative" (rep) whose vote is equal to those of his/her constituency is effectively nothing more than another member of that same constituency. If, perhaps, you have in mind that the rep's vote is weighted more heavily than the rest, or perhaps that the rep has the option to veto the aggregate vote of his/her constituency, then I suppose that might qualify as a sort-of direct/representative hybrid. But that's not a pure model of direct democracy, which is what you appear to be working with (e.g. "the ability to vote directly is the primary means by which legislation is enacted"), and it still requires a sufficient defense of direct democracy (which I've yet to encounter, here or elsewhere).

Please bear in mind that I'm starting from the position that I want to improve representative democracy (e.g. via reforms to the electoral system). If you want to persuade me that my efforts in that regard are wasted, or that achieving direct democracy is a better goal than improving representative democracy, then you have a much steeper hill to climb, compared with merely arguing that the two models can co-exist in practice within the same political system. I can readily accept that argument, but I consider it trivial - like saying that oil and water can co-exist within the same space.

Of course they can, but not without weakening the concentration of one or the other chemical substance. The important question here (furthering the analogy) is: Which chemical substance better suits a particular purpose? And (now breaking the analogy) that's a much larger debate. Again, I'm with Massimo on this one (and, somewhat ironically, I think the main reason relates directly to the theory of virtue ethics).

1) You keep going wrong because you've failed to grasp the difference between a representative and representative democracy. The former is a position which allows a particular person to vote on legislation based. The later is a type of election system which allows only representatives to vote directly on legislation.

Your attempt to rebut with regard to which systems prohibit what, have all failed because of this misunderstanding. So, we can put those to bed.

2) I've not suggested a hybrid of any sort. Again: direct democracy does not prohibit representatives. If me and a hundred other people decided to give you our votes for your use, you are our representative, and can cast those votes as you see fit – conscience engaged or not. That's how proxy voting within direct democracy works (incidentally, proxy voting under a representative democracy works differently).

3) As alluded to in point 2, there is no prohibition against representatives voting their conscience in a direct democracy. So, it can hardly amount to an essential difference between representative democracy and direct democracy.

4) I will remind you that it was you who zeroed in on which systems prohibited what, not me. When you say “I can readily accept that argument, but I consider it trivial,“ I wonder why it so attracted your attention in the first place. I thought it trivial too. I'm glad we both think it's trivial now.

5) Virtue ethics do not legitimize representative democracy in any sense - quite the opposite. Representative democracy prohibits most citizens from the practice of applying political power, which in turn robs them of the opportunity to cultivate political virtue. That's how virtue works, and that was my argument many many comments back. So here is a quick list of direct democracy's virtues:

- direct democracy facilitates the cultivation of political virtue within the citizenry.- direct democracy delivers proportionate representation.- direct democracy fosters large scale discourse, debate, and deliberation- direct democracy forces lobbyists to lobby an entire population, reducing corruption at the level of the elected official.- citizens can voice their across a wide array of issues without having to commit to a particular basket of predefined policies.- direct democracy erodes the effectiveness of financing on policy....

6) The objections here have mostly been various versions of the same argument aristocrats have always used. Ruling is for the very best people, for only they can protect us from our own ignorant. It's never been true, because no system has ever been devised that can ensure that the best people really are the best people. Case in point: Sarah Palin. It's for Sarah Palin's wisdom that we reject direct democracy? Please.

Perhaps we can agree on one thing: representative democracy (RD) and direct democracy (DD) contradict one another. Of course, that's not to suggest that we find no examples of DD under a system that's dominated by the RD model (e.g. see Massimo's California example above). But, wherever those DD events occur, they occur by temporarily curtailing RD.

And that's really the main point of my last few comments (which may have been lost in provocative side comments). In every instance where the RD-dominated system permits DD to occur, it occurs by curtailing a rep's power to deliberate, negotiate, and make the final decision on a bill - in other words, the very power that distinguishes RD from DD. That doesn't mean that the rep can't vote, of course, just like any other member of his/her constituency. But s/he cannot vote like a rep in the RD sense of a rep. I understand that, as a DD advocate, you endorse that. But I do not.

I hope that's clearer. My side comments in support of RD (and against DD) only seem to lengthen the discussion beyond what I have time for, so I'll try to refrain from replying to your other assertions.

PS: My allusion to virtue ethics was more of a nod to Massimo, with whom I've quibbled over normative theory before. He likes to argue for virtue ethics, whereas I like to point out its shortcomings (e.g. given my greater attraction to other non-air-tight approaches, like preference utilitarianism and Rawlsian justice). Nonetheless, in the domain of politics, I feel obliged to acknowledge that, when it comes to deciding who is "fit for office" (or who is fit to vote directly on legislation), a virtue-ethics-like pattern seems to play a strong role in my thinking.

Of course, that decision is also constrained to a roster of candidates on the ballot (unless I choose to do a write-in), and also involves calculations based on who has a realistic chance of winning, and predictions of likely consequences (in terms of policy changes) from a victory for A vs. B. But, inasmuch as I think in terms of political "qualifications" (e.g. legislative/judicial/executive experience/record, communication skills, and other leadership qualities), an analogy to virtue ethics seems most apt.

Your point has not been lost. You are simply mistaken. As I have repeatedly shown demonstrated. So, again...

RD and DD do indeed contradict each other, but not in the way you think. Representatives within DD can cast votes, not only their own votes, but all the votes other people have given them. They can deliberate. They can negotiate. They can't make final decision on a bill, but a representative cannot do that in any form of democracy (representatives themselves engage in direct democracy in every legislature in the world; noone just decides). The only difference, the ONLY difference, between RD and DD, is that direct voting is not prohibited in DD. Full stop.

That you can cherry pick activities that resemble DD within RD, call them hybrids, or partial implementations (I'll remind you that Massimo doesn't even think these things are like DD at all), does not mean that representatives and the activities we have come to associate with them cannot exist under DD. However - and this continues to be my point - we can say that direct voting cannot (by definition, a priori, tautologically) exist in a representative democracy under normal operating conditions.

So, once and for all, this:

"That doesn't mean that the rep can't vote, of course, just like any other member of his/her constituency. But s/he cannot vote like a rep in the RD sense of a rep" - jsm

...is wrong. There is no law of the universe that prohibits representatives from collecting votes (or convincing people to vote if there is no proxy mechanism), debating, negociating, horse-trading, and casting those votes in whatever way makes them feel best about themselves.

The only difference, the ONLY difference, between RD and DD, is that direct voting is not prohibited in DD. Full stop.

Does DD prohibit a representative from having the only vote for his/her constituency - one that potentially runs counter to popular opinion in his/her constituency? If so, then DD prohibits RD, as I believe it is commonly understood and practiced throughout the industrialized world (viz. in constitutional republics). If not, then I admit that you've utterly confused me as to what definition of DD you have in mind.

PS: I unconsciously adopted your use of "prohibits", even though I prefer "contradicts" or "curtails", since two powers (or voting procedures) can both be legal options and yet be either partly or wholly mutually exclusive of the other.

In this case, I think the relevant powers are:

1) the power of a rep to vote "independently" on legislation, as in:

a) to cast a single vote for an entire constituency; and

b) to have the final say as to what that vote will be, even if it runs counter to the popular opinion of his/her constituency.

and

2) the power of his/her constituency to vote directly on legislation (whatever the details of that mechanism may be).

For simplicity's sake, I've been calling (1) "RD" and (2) "DD", but what's more to the point is that (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. Granted, (2) is compatible with (1a) alone (e.g. if the rep serves as a mere proxy or messenger for the constituency's vote total), but (2) is incompatible with (1) as a whole (i.e. where 1a and 1b are combined), regardless of which power one prefers.

So, to say that one power "prohibits" the other is another (albeit, misleading) way to put that, I suppose, but then the "prohibition" in this case still works both ways, according to the logic of contradiction.

Number 1 is compatible with Direct Democracy. Let's take a look at a case study.

# A typical case study of proxy voting within DD ###Imagine that you and I give our votes to Massimo for an upcoming vote on whether or not to declare war on Lybia. Massimo has convinced us that he is an expert on these things. I'm predisposed toward invading, and you are predisposed against invading (in this hypothetical only). In fact, I just let Massimo cast my vote on everything because I'm not interested in politics, while this is the first legislation you've handed him your vote for. He talks with people about it, debates, does whatever, and ultimately decides that we would be better served if he traded those votes with a Catholic priest in exchange for his (and his basket of votes) support on an upcoming bill about teaching creationism in schools. Massimo votes against the invasion, supporting the priest, the priest promises not to support the later bill.

You find out afterwards and are a little upset; you decide that you will not be giving him your vote for a future election. I never really find out because I'm derelict, though I talk to my friends as if I supported the invasion.##################

Your second - and new - problem is that not all representative democracies grant representatives the ability "to cast a single vote for an entire constituency". Most versions of proportionate representation divide a constituency into a number of votes - sometimes at the district level, sometimes at the legislature level. If 1b is a necessary requirement, I'm not sure what exactly you liked about proportionate democracy - or disliked about FPTP - in the first place.

"Does DD prohibit a representative from having the only vote for his/her constituency - one that potentially runs counter to popular opinion in his/her constituency?" - jsm

No, with the funny caveat that his constituency is limited to the people who had faith enough in that representative to give him their vote in the first place. The basic idea of proportionate democracy.

This might be easier for you if, instead of thinking of it as DD, you imagine a representative democracy where votes can be cast asynchronously and anyone can collect votes as a representative. It's essentially the same thing.

asynchronously = you can move your vote between representatives whenever you like (including to yourself as a representative).

collect votes = the basket of votes that a representative represents can be thought of as collected.

You will agree now that representatives and direct democracy are not necessarily incompatible.

P.S. I used the word "prohibits" because that's what I meant. It conveyed necessity where it belonged.

You make some good points. My attempt above at capturing the core characterisics of RD needs work. For example, I would agree that RD can accommodate proportional representation (or perhaps some other relationship between a district, a seat, and a vote) and still be recognizable as such.

I suspect that something is missing from (1) that would better capture the difference between RD and DD for me. You already know that we agree that direct voting is not a feature of RD, but what feature(s), if any, does RD have that DD lacks?

Based partly on your DD scenarios above, I suspect that a core ingredient, present in RD but missing in DD, is the legal concept of terms of office.

For example, US (House) Represenatatives serve two-year terms, US Senators serve six-year terms, and (I believe) UK MP's serve 4-5-year terms. [Sorry, not sure about Canada.] So, too, in RD examples that feature proportional representation: winning an election usually means gaining a parliamentary office and/or seat for a specified term. Moreover, with or without term limits, only the individual who won that seat (or, in rare cases, was appointed to it) is entitled to its duties and privileges, which include voting on legislation.

Now, I suppose you could say that, even under DD, anyone who claims to deliver someone else's vote on a particular decision is "serving a term of office." I think you'd be ignoring some significant differences, but I can't stop you from saying it.

If (as I suspect) this is correct, then I think it is equally fair to say that DD "prohibits" terms of office, in the sense that I describe here, as it is to say that RD "prohibits" direct voting, in the sense that you describe above.

Term limits are not a necessary part of RD either. Here in Canada, a government can get defeated in parliament on the very first vote, which results in an immediate re-election. That means that the representatives' term lasted exactly one vote. And there are many countries that have similar arrangements.

Conversely, there can be problems in a DD (these are all hypothetical of course) with financing representatives. Term limits are sometimes suggested. However, in those cases, the term limits sometimes only apply to financing, but there are other suggestions too.

I don't know why you need the difference to be greater than it is. It is what it is. Wishing RP or DD to be something that they are not doesn't really serve any purpose.

But for a moment, let's imagine that there were some other differences. The most important difference would still remain that RD prohibits direct voting. This is the most important reason because prohibiting direct voting is exactly the reason that was given for developing representative democracy in the first place.

So, the billion dollar question is: is this restriction justified?

# Justification 1 - the aristocratic argument#The classic justification relies on a conception of the citizenry that characterizes them as dangerous morons. The idea is that having an elected representative guards against the stupidity of the masses.

The problem with this logic is that the quality of the representative is still in the hands of the citizenry. If the citizenry are too incompetent to contribute to the enactment of legislation, how could they possibly be competent enough to select a competent representative? Enter Sarah Palin.

#Justification 2 - The Debators #The other classic justification is that professional deliberators are needed because democracy isn't just blindly voting, but is a deliberative process.

This is essentially a red herring (except where it is really just another version of the aristocratic argument, which fails for its own reasons). DD does not prohibit representatives or deliberation. In fact, it facilitates a much more dynamic and broad discourse.

# So, what's so great about Direct Democracy? #Representative democracy too sharply cuts citizens out of the political process. This alienation results in crummy citizens who don't really know what's going on around them, and have very little motivation to find out - the honour of your representative betraying your trust for the sake of their conscience is not really much of a motivational factor.

# Conclusion #So, representative democracy fails to deliver on its safeguards, but succeeds in building an edifice between the government and its people. I wont miss it when it goes.

# Amendment: Arguing Against Myself #I think you can argue that the party system adds in an extra layer of aristocratic guardianship by determining which candidates people can vote for. I don't think this kind of mechanism requires RD. I think large party-like institutions will spring up whether direct voting is restricted or not - cause that's what people do.

Hold it right there. I mentioned "terms of office" as the defining trait, not "term limits." The latter (at least in a US context) usually means a limit on the number of terms, not the length of the term itself. Even if that term lasts for only one vote (which admittedly sounds strange to me), the RD representative must be elected by a district in order to serve a term.

And I should note that I'm attempting to describe a "pure" model of RD, in relation to the "pure" model of DD you've described, because once we admit hybrids (like California, which fits my conception of RD, yet allows for initiatives & referendums), then even your claim that "RD prohibits direct voting" is false.

Also, I'm not even necessarily defending RD at this point - not because I don't still think DD is a bad idea (I do), but because I feel we've already exhausted that topic without much movement on either side, and time is limited. I think we're nearing a similar impasse on this topic, as well, but I have one more clarification to add.

When the government counts the votes that I and the rest of the electorate living within my district cast for a particular set of representative candidates, the state grants the winner(s) exclusive authorization to vote on our behalf for a particular term (usually measured in years). In other words, our votes add up to collective consent to that exclusive authorization.

Now, if you prefer to describe this type of authorization as "prohibitive" of direct voting (again, in a pure model of RD), then I would have to agree with you (even though I prefer a more positive emphasis).

More to the point, insofar as this type of authorization is mutually exclusive with direct voting (again, if we're comparing pure models of RD and DD), it seems fair to say that DD must prohibit this type of authorization if direct voting is to be practiced at all.

In other words, given this understanding of RD, the prohibition is mutual, such that the only way to reconcile the two models is to design a hybrid form (California's being a salient example, at least in the minds of US citizens like myself).

No. I'm not describing a "pure" version of anything. California is not an example that contradicts what I've said, as I've explained several times already. You keep lapsing back into the same errors.

And this:"It seems fair to say that DD must prohibit this type of authorization if direct voting is to be practiced at all"

Representatives in both RD and DD contexts are authorized to cast votes according to the power invested in then, and no one can say otherwise. What you mean to say here is that DD prohibits the prohibiting of direct voting. Basically, you've just said what I did but in a double negative. That's no objection at all.

# As Dialectic?Is there direct voting in the normal function of a representative democracy? No, by definition there cannot be. Are there representatives in the normal functioning of direct democracy? There can be. Therefore, RD necessarily prohibits direct voting, while DD does not necessarily prohibit representatives.

What you mean to say here is that DD prohibits the prohibiting of direct voting. Basically, you've just said what I did but in a double negative. That's no objection at all.

That is about as close to an agreement as we are likely to reach. It's just framed in a way that's designed to that makes RD look bad (e.g. repressive). It's akin to my saying that the only difference between RD and DD is that DD undermines a district's right to choose who will vote on its behalf for a designated term. "Full stop."

Side note: I never said that California contradicts what you've said. On the contrary, it's a salient exemplar of DD, as practiced in the US. (That it's also a disaster is just a snarky side note to the side note.)

""Race" is an outdated and intellectually bankrupt concept as far as I'm concerned, and the sooner it's discarded from the collective understanding of society, the better." - Michael

That's a very Utopian desire. Even assuming that there are no "pure" races, it's clearly evident in America that racial categorization based on sight (done whether gov't officially does so or not) affects the opportunities and chances of many citizens.

Despite European genes in most people who have black skin, they still face discrimination and limited opportunities. Race has real social effects and most attempts to be "colour-blind" tend to ignore real racism.

And I disagree with Massimo's original point. While Obama certainly has had a lot larger of a social network and a more stable family environment than members of the American underclass, people must have still made snap judgements, unconcious or otherwise, about him on the basis of his racial appearance.